NECdigest Article Strikes Again...

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
I know its not a big deal, but I really wish the editors of the NECdigest would do more to edit out errors or at least clarify comments and statements made in the magazine articles.

The case in point in the recent issue is the "Checking Ground Electrode Impedance" by, Frank Healy (Page 33)

Statement #1,

Current will always find and travel the least-resistant path back to its source.
Click to expand...

Critique by me: Doesn't current also flow through high-resistant paths such as humans????

Statement #2,

The NEC specifies 25 ohms as an acceptable limit for electrode impedance.
Click to expand...

Critique by me: 1. Impedance? Section 250.56 refers to resistance. There is a difference.

2. We all know 25 ohms is not a limit nor a requirement. 25 ohms has NO significance.

3. All electrodes? This section only refers to Rod, Pipe, and Plate Electrodes. There is nothing in the code that would prevent any of the other electrodes specified in 250.52 to have resistances above 25 ohms.

There are probably more, but I honestly stopped reading the article after that. We shouldn't be getting bad information or at least poorly written information from the NFPA, especially on NEC issues. I am also not sure I like articles in an NFPA publication written by a manufacturer of a product...
 
I no longer read any trade mags or the NEC digest because of stuff like this. Many of the articles in EC&M are written by manufacturers who throw very subtle sales pitches into their articles (which is obviously what they are going to do because they are manufacturers!)
 
The authors would do better to post the article here first for a critique. After doing that I doubt many errors would ever make it into print.
 
peter d said:
I no longer read any trade mags or the NEC digest because of stuff like this.
Click to expand...

I agree Peter.

When I do find myself reading trade magazines, I find myself looking for bogus information and mistakes more than actually reading them for the educational or informative contributions we should expect.

Roger
 
FWIW, these magazines are always really hungry for folks to write articles. Sure, you don't get paid for it normally, but your name will be in print. Just write something up and send it in. It seems they've got slim pickings sometimes of the people willing to compose an article every once in a while. I'm sure some of the other members here have gotten the occasional PM inquiring if you're interested in writing on something or other that you were talking about in a recent thread.
 
peter d said:
I no longer read any trade mags or the NEC digest because of stuff like this. Many of the articles in EC&M are written by manufacturers who throw very subtle sales pitches into their articles (which is obviously what they are going to do because they are manufacturers!)
Click to expand...

I had started a couple different threads awhile back semi-related to this very problem.
First being that the NEC Digest was no longer going to be available as a printed publication after the December 2007 issue.
Secondly asking for recommended publications in order to obtain a wider base of knowledge without spending alot of money.
I had a subscription to the NEC Digest,until it went totally digital,and I guess I was relying on the publisher of the code to be an accurate source of information in regards to putting it into practice/use.
I also receive EC&M and have in fact noticed wrong or misleading information in a few articles.
So, again ... What reliable time tested and proven accurate publications are out there available on a regular basis .
Thanks,
Carl :confused:
 
Carl Ewing said:
So, again ... What reliable time tested and proven accurate publications are out there available on a regular basis .
Thanks,
Carl :confused:
Click to expand...

This forum is one. :) It's not a publication, obviously, but for code information it can't be beat.
 
I gave up reading trade magazines a while back. The articles were too vague or generic, not technical or interesting enough for me. Even the "spot the code violations" in print are nothing compared to what we see here.

This forum however, is the best thing for technical and practical information.

Besides if you don't agree with someone, you can respond to them right away!!!
 
peter d said:
I no longer read any trade mags or the NEC digest because of stuff like this.
Click to expand...
Add me to that list as well.
I am a member of IAEI, so I get their magazine. Before I read it, however, I always check to see who wrote it. If it is an article about grounding and it is written by the manufacturer of a ground rod testing device, I am not interested. If it is by Busmann telling me how wonderful selective coordination is, I don't read it. If it is by Sqaure D telling me how wonderful AFCIs are, I don't read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top